Political Awareness

Note: Political Awareness’s published communication is never authorized by any candidate or their committees.

National Policy Roundup is a section to explain what legislation is currently being considered in Congress, the cases held by the Supreme Court, and actions taken by the Executive branch each week. The goal of this column is to break down the important legislation to help our readers better understand how current happenings in the federal government can and will affect their lives as well as what they can do to help influence their representatives’ actions. 

Bills of Note Coming to the Floor in Congress~

H.R. 3486: Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025

The House Majority Leader indicated on July 17, 2025, that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act, significantly increasing criminal penalties for non-U.S. nationals who illegally enter or reenter the United States after removal:

• Illegal entry (8 U.S.C. 1325): Raises the maximum prison term from 2 to 5 years, and establishes a mandatory minimum of 5 years (up to life) for those who illegally enter and later are convicted of any crime punishable by over a year. 

• Illegal reentry after removal (8 U.S.C. 1326):

• Basic reentry back from removal/denial: incarceration up to 10 years.
• After exactly three misdemeanors (drugs or violent): up to 15 years.
• If removed for national security/admissibility issues or specific grounds: mandatory 10-year sentence, non-concurrent.
• Removal and reentry three or more times: penalty up to 10 years.
• For aggravated felonies or at least two prior illegal-reentry convictions: mandatory minimum 10 years (up to life).

This legislation aims to:

1. More strongly deter repeated illegal entries and reentries, especially by individuals with criminal records, including drug offenses or violent misdemeanors.
2. Enhance sentencing ranges, making previously minor immigration offenses carry significantly greater prison terms.
3. Criminalize recidivism via escalating mandatory minimums for those repeatedly removed and convicted, particularly when tied to serious crimes.

It reflects a broader push for stricter immigration enforcement and criminal consequences beyond administrative removal—a move controversial with civil rights advocates but championed by law enforcement groups.

Support: 

According to supporters, the bill is necessary to strengthen immigration enforcement for illegal immigrants with criminal records. They argue that harsher sentences will act as a stronger deterrent, help protect public safety, and support law enforcement efforts to uphold immigration laws and border security.

Opposition: 

Opponents contend that the bill is too harsh and risks criminalizing people for nonviolent immigration violations. They are concerned that mandatory minimum sentences limit judicial discretion and could disproportionately impact vulnerable migrants, including those fleeing difficult circumstances. Critics also warn that the bill could strain the prison system and focus more on punishment than on addressing the underlying issues driving migration.

Sponsor:

• Stephanie Bice: Representative for Oklahoma’s 5th congressional district. Republican.

H.R. 3937: Wabeno Economic Development Act

The House Majority Leader indicated on July 17, 2025, that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

Summary of bill: 

It lets a private company buy about 14 acres of federal forest land in Wisconsin for mining sand, gravel, or stone. The company has to pay the market price and cover costs like surveys and environmental studies. The government must disclose if there are any hazardous materials, but doesn’t have to clean them up beforehand. The bill also requires the government to review and try to speed up the permitting process for mining on federal lands, aiming to make it easier and faster for companies to get permission to operate.

The Wabeno Economic Development Act aims to promote economic growth in Wabeno, Wisconsin, by facilitating the transfer of federal land to a local business for resource extraction. The bill includes provisions for land conveyance, appraisal, hazardous materials disclosure, and a review of federal permitting processes. It has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting consideration in the Senate.

What’s concerning: 

Selling public land:

This is federal forest land, part of a national forest system meant for public use and conservation. Selling it to a private company for resource extraction could set a precedent for more sales, reducing protected lands.

Environmental risks:

While the company must do environmental studies, the government isn’t responsible for cleaning up pollution or hazardous substances. This shifts the environmental burden onto the buyer, but it’s unclear how strictly that will be enforced or monitored.

Streamlining permits:

Trying to speed up permits might reduce environmental reviews or public input. In effect, this potentially sacrifices safeguards to help the company operate faster and cheaper.

Local impact:

The bill promotes economic growth, but it’s worth questioning whether short-term business gains outweigh long-term environmental and community costs like habitat loss, pollution, and reduced recreational spaces.

Sponsor: 

• Thomas Tiffany: Representative for Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district. Republican.

Legislation of Note from the Supreme Court~

Trump v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Issue:

• Can the President remove commissioners of independent federal agencies—specifically the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)—before the end of their terms, even when those terms are statutorily protected?

Facts:

1. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is an independent federal agency created by Congress to regulate product safety.
2. CPSC commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They serve fixed five-year terms and, by statute, can only be removed “for cause” (e.g., neglect of duty or malfeasance).
3. After taking office, President Trump sought to remove three Democratic commissioners from the CPSC before their terms ended, citing policy disagreements and performance concerns.
4. The commissioners challenged the removals in court, arguing that their positions were protected by law and that the President could not fire them without specific cause.
5. Lower courts sided with the commissioners, saying the law’s protections against arbitrary removal were valid and enforceable.
6. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, considering both constitutional and statutory questions about executive power and agency independence.

Questions: 

1. Does the President have constitutional authority to remove commissioners of an independent agency before the end of their terms, even when Congress has provided statutory protection against such removal?
2. Is the “for cause” removal protection for CPSC commissioners unconstitutional if it limits the President’s control over an agency that exercises executive power?
3. Do fixed-term appointments for commissioners of independent regulatory agencies violate the separation of powers doctrine when they restrict presidential oversight of executive functions?

Ruling:

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump can remove three Democratic members of the CPSC before their terms expire, effectively overturning a lower court decision that had upheld their protection under fixed-term appointments.

The Court held that limitations on the president’s removal power—such as those requiring “for cause” removal—are unconstitutional when applied to members of regulatory agencies that exercise executive power. It emphasized the need for presidential control over the executive branch, citing recent precedents that eroded the independence of such agencies (Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen).

Broader Implications:

• This ruling is part of a larger legal trend in which the Court has weakened the independence of regulatory agencies, making them more vulnerable to political control.
• Critics fear this opens the door for future presidents to reshape agencies for political reasons—especially those overseeing business, finance, labor, and environmental protections.
• Supporters argue it reinforces accountability and reduces bureaucratic resistance to elected leadership.

Executive Actions of Note~

Preventing “Woke AI” in Federal Procurements 

What happened:

President Trump issued an executive order banning federal agencies from using AI systems perceived to exhibit ideological or “woke” bias—particularly those integrating DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) values. Agencies must now procure “unbiased” AI tools that prioritize “truth and accuracy,” according to newly established federal standards.

Critics say:

Civil liberties and tech ethicists argue the order imposes a political litmus test on AI, potentially silencing models that acknowledge systemic inequality or reflect progressive values. Some warn it may chill innovation and ignore how bias often emerges from data, not intent. Legal experts also raise concerns about the vagueness of terms like “truth” and “bias,” and the lack of clear standards for AI neutrality.

Accelerating Data Center Permits 

What happened:

The administration directed agencies to fast-track permits and scale back environmental reviews for constructing AI data centers nationwide. It seeks to reduce delays caused by NEPA and other environmental laws, with the goal of boosting U.S. infrastructure for AI development and cloud computing.

Critics say:

Environmental groups warn that cutting review processes undermines climate and community safeguards. Pertinently, AI data centers consume massive amounts of energy and water. Urban planners caution against the sidelining of local input, while legal analysts say the move could invite lawsuits from environmental and tribal groups.

Promoting U.S. AI Exports 

What happened:

Through a new interagency initiative, the White House launched a $100+ billion AI export strategy. The Departments of Commerce and State will expand U.S. AI systems, training programs, and infrastructure abroad. The move is designed to counter China’s growing influence in the global AI marketplace.

Critics say:

Watchdog groups argue the plan amounts to a massive corporate subsidy with limited public transparency or international accountability. Critics worry the U.S. could export surveillance tools or militarized applications without sufficient ethical safeguards. Some also question whether the funds prioritize U.S. geopolitical goals over sustainable digital development in partner countries.

4. Reclassifying Federal Workers as “Schedule G”

What happened: 

Trump issued an order creating the new “Schedule G” classification, targeting certain non-career federal employees—primarily in policymaking roles—to make them easier to dismiss. This echoes his earlier (and rescinded) “Schedule F” approach, effectively turning more career staff into at-will employees 

Critics say:

Labor advocates argue this undermines civil service protections, politicizes the bureaucracy, and allows sweeping firings for political reasons.